2 police officers threatened and assaulted Army officer during an illegal stop, lawsuit claims: Vide

[txradioguy]

@txradioguy

Or MAYBE,the idiot cop shouldn't have been trying to grab  an innocent citizen that was not guilty of ANY actual crime?

At WORSE,he was guilty of an unintended traffic violation because his temporary license wasn't visable.

ALL the escalation here was due to the actions of the cops. Mainly the fat,bald one. Of course,the other cop is going to do down with him because he didn't stop him. He was kinda in a lose-lose situation. If he backed his partner he was guilty of abetting abuse and if he didn't,chances are he would end up losing his job.

Do YOU think this sort of thing justifies physical force and violence by the police? Would it be ok with you if it were YOUR son or daughter they had stopped,and not this Lt?

Once the driver refused to comply with the officers commands...he was guilty of obstruction.  From that point on he determined how that entire stoop went.

The choice that 2LT made determined how that stop was going to go.

Or do you not believe in personal responsibility for your own actions anymore?

If my kids or even myself had acted like that 2LT had...I'd have no room to complain about what happened next.  Because the conscious decisions I would have made to ignore the officers commands would have led to the end result.

It's just that simple.

[txradioguy]

I still don't get the 'guns out' posture of the cops - a license plate violation followed by a mile drive & pullover to a well lit area.

Couldn't see the tag...refused to stop when first lit up.

Can't blame them one bit for having guns drawn at first till they knew what they were dealing with.  Especially with what's been happening lately.  Two cops run over in DC and one shot in the head on a routine traffic stop in rural NM.

[txradioguy]

And before anyone tries to get the bright idea to falsely label me as some police ass kisser (because I know it's coming)...I'm on record in the Minnesota shooting thread as saying the cop needs to be fired for being too stupid to tell the difference between her Glock and her bright yellow taser.

But I bet the cops bashers in this thread won't go over to that one and try to apply their same BS cop bashing on that case that they do here.

Imagine applying your defense of the 2LT in this thread to Duante Wright.

Then you being to see how ridiculous your cop bashing is in this instance.

I'll stand back now and watch the dissembling begin.

[verga]

I saw videos before your link. I did not see how the officer could have possibly been "In fear of his life" to warrant pulling a weapon on the driver.

@Elderberry Did you see the ENTIRE video, not the edited CNN MSNBdouchbag video?

[txradioguy]

What part of "turn off the engine" and "stick your hands out the windows" is unlawful in a typical traffic stop?

I'm not denying the cops had the authority to stop and investigate.

Then they immediately went into Testosterone Mode and pulled their penises...er..guns out, without reason.

That is when the situation went pear shaped.    There was no need to display weapons at that point.

And what the hell, do those er.."cops" have any brains at all?  If the vehicle WAS being driven by gangstas...would they prefer to stop on a dark highway and play shoot-em-up, or would they go to a well-lit service station, with cameras and witnesses, to do the deed?

if the "cop" had any normal level of testosterone, he would have walked up to the vehicle and done the procedure properly. 

He did not.  He failed to control the situation and thus the onus is on him.

And, no, it's not "obstructing" the law to refuse to exit a vehicle until the "cops" present adequate probable cause.   

"Get out of the car."

"No.  Why should I?"

"I'm a Low T cop and want to boost my ego."

"Not good enough.  That's not recognized probable cause."

"How about 'Get out or I shoot you'?"

"Then any search of my vehicle is unlawful under the Fourth Amendment."

The cops resorted to force and threats because their widdle egos were hurt and they knew they didn't have authority to go as far as they did.

How about you try and apply this crap you're spewing on this thread.

http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,433996.new.html#new


I mean they are practically the same set of circumstances right?

[verga]

What part of "turn off the engine" and "stick your hands out the windows" is unlawful in a typical traffic stop?

I'm not denying the cops had the authority to stop and investigate.

Then they immediately went into Testosterone Mode and pulled their penises...er..guns out, without reason.

That is when the situation went pear shaped.    There was no need to display weapons at that point.

And what the hell, do those er.."cops" have any brains at all?  If the vehicle WAS being driven by gangstas...would they prefer to stop on a dark highway and play shoot-em-up, or would they go to a well-lit service station, with cameras and witnesses, to do the deed?

if the "cop" had any normal level of testosterone, he would have walked up to the vehicle and done the procedure properly. 

He did not.  He failed to control the situation and thus the onus is on him.

And, no, it's not "obstructing" the law to refuse to exit a vehicle until the "cops" present adequate probable cause.   

"Get out of the car."

"No.  Why should I?"

"I'm a Low T cop and want to boost my ego."

"Not good enough.  That's not recognized probable cause."

"How about 'Get out or I shoot you'?"

"Then any search of my vehicle is unlawful under the Fourth Amendment."

The cops resorted to force and threats because their widdle egos were hurt and they knew they didn't have authority to go as far as they did.

Still contradicting yourself  "Those orders were lawful and routine for a traffic stop." in your previous post. The Lt was being DETAINED, that means by LAW he is required to follow the directions of the police officers. He did not come close to doing that for over SEVEN MINUTES. Tinted windows (So they can't see into the vehicle,) They can't see how many people are in the vehicle or if they are armed. No visible license plate, so they don't know if the vehicle is stolen. He continued to leave the car running after being told 5-6 times to turn it off. Instead he used that time to set up his cell phone to record the incident. He did not have BOTH  hands out the window until being told over 10 times (He only had his left arm out. and He had a FIREARM within reach of his right hand. If I am in that situation your DAMN right I am approaching with my sidearm out.

[txradioguy]

Still contradicting yourself  "Those orders were lawful and routine for a traffic stop." in your previous post. The Lt was being DETAINED, that means by LAW he is required to follow the directions of the police officers. He did not come close to doing that for over SEVEN MINUTES. Tinted windows (So they can't see into the vehicle,) They can't see how many people are in the vehicle or if they are armed. No visible license plate, so they don't know if the vehicle is stolen. He continued to leave the car running after being told 5-6 times to turn it off. Instead he used that time to set up his cell phone to record the incident. He did not have BOTH  hands out the window until being told over 10 times (He only had his left arm out. and He had a FIREARM within reach of his right hand. If I am in that situation your DAMN right I am approaching with my sidearm out.

@verga thank you for reminding me of that salient point.  Have they determined whether he legally owned that firearm or not?

[verga]

I drove a cargo van for over a decade.

My windows weren't tinted.  They were steel sheets, no windows.

The cop was required to address the citizen respectfully and explain his reason for stopping the citizen, not scream at him  in an estrogen haze.

The rear windows of those SUVs are tinted for thermal reasons, among others.   It was a factory tint.   The cop was a gutless little girl who caused a minor issue to become a major viral video.

He needs to learn to code.

Edit:
Let me answer the question - the "cop" was stereotyping in that he assumed the driver of a black late-model SUV with temporary tags...oops...he was too stupid to see those....was a gangster with a gun endangering his life.   

And yeah, that's why I said "stereotyping" since I reserve the word "racist" to the Rodents and because I meant to use the word "stereotyping" because I know what words mean.  I'm really special that way.

The tags were not visible.
Even in the "well lit" parking lot. You watch the video and tell me 1) Exactly where it is located. 2) The number and letters are on it. Not holding my breath. 

[LegalAmerican]

Still contradicting yourself  "Those orders were lawful and routine for a traffic stop." in your previous post. The Lt was being DETAINED, that means by LAW he is required to follow the directions of the police officers. He did not come close to doing that for over SEVEN MINUTES. Tinted windows (So they can't see into the vehicle,) They can't see how many people are in the vehicle or if they are armed. No visible license plate, so they don't know if the vehicle is stolen. He continued to leave the car running after being told 5-6 times to turn it off. Instead he used that time to set up his cell phone to record the incident. He did not have BOTH  hands out the window until being told over 10 times (He only had his left arm out. and He had a FIREARM within reach of his right hand. If I am in that situation your DAMN right I am approaching with my sidearm out.

Thank you again.  As if people can't hear, read, see!  It isn't the police who have egos.  They are doing their job.
 

[skeeter]

Couldn't see the tag...refused to stop when first lit up.

Can't blame them one bit for having guns drawn at first till they knew what they were dealing with.  Especially with what's been happening lately.  Two cops run over in DC and one shot in the head on a routine traffic stop in rural NM.

You have the right to continue to a safe well lit area even after being lit up. And I'm not going to reach down to unhook my seatbelt with two cops shouting and pointing their guns at me. The cops escalated the situation unnecessarily.

[txradioguy]

You have the right to continue to a safe well lit area even after being lit up. And I'm not going to reach down to unhook my seatbelt with two cops shouting and pointing their guns at me. The cops escalated the situation unnecessarily.

Where is that a "right" exactly?  They were telling him to take his seat belt off and exit the vehicle.  He refused.

No they didn't.  They escalated the scenario because of the refusal of the driver to comply with lawful orders.

Again...decisions made by the 2LT led to this.  OR have we totally abandoned the concept of taking responsibility for our own actions?

[Elderberry]

@Elderberry Did you see the ENTIRE video, not the edited CNN MSNBdouchbag video?

I watched enough and listened to the police audios. I didn't listen to any of the crappy commentaries though. What do you care? Do you need to be told what to think?

[Sled Dog]

So automatically he escalated the situation.

No.

The cop did when he pulled the gun with no evidence of an active threat.

A citizen reacting SLOWLY is not a threat, just a moron.

They make anyone an officer, these days....

Never said they were...but we as soldiers also know that we have to obey lawful orders from civilian police officers if we are stopped for any violation.  We show up on civilian police blotters just like anyone else when we run afoul of the law.  And any resistance to civilian law enforcement can result in military repercussions on our career.

I was no soldier.

And the orders were not lawful, not when the command was, under gun-point, to exit the vehicle with no statement of probable cause for the stop.

The "cops" escalated the situation, don't forget.

Driver fails to comply...won't stop...refuses commands...what are they supposed to do...ask pretty please?  Wait til the driver runs them over to draw their weapoin?

They were supposed to get their asses out of the cop car, walk up to the citizen and SPEAK to him.

Not scream at him with weapons out.    I'd have taken my sweet time to answer those unlawful orders, too.

And, btw, it's REALLY hard to run over someone approaching the SIDE of a car...the wheels don't roll that way.   And if the suspect had fled the scene after coming to a stop, THEN the cops could have had a fun high-speed chase and OBVIOUS CAUSE to draw weapons.  Since that's not what happened, don't try to bolster your arguments with hypotheticals.

If the "victim" is complicit in what ends up happening to them then they really aren't that much of a victim now are they?

The cops were in violation of standard procedure.

What LAW did the victim violate?

Rule of law is a cornerstone of conservatism.  Sorry you don't comprehend that.

The CONSTITUTION is the basis of liberty.    When "laws" violate the Constitution, they're not laws and don't need to be obeyed.

Which laws did the victim violate?

The cops violated the Fourth Amendment, engaged in assault under color of authority and otherwise abused their power.

The old description for that is "police brutality".  Conservatives used to object to that.  Actually, conservatives still object to it.   

So was the law of that area.  By the citizen.  Bigly.

What law did he violate, in his brandy-new factory tinted SUV? 

The driver continued for a mile after the lights were turned on.  There was no tag visible.    The officer had no idea what was going on.  My first thought would be stolen vehicle.  Watch enough shows like LivePD and you understand why.

There was a tag visible.   It was in the rear window.  The cop had a mile of looking at that end of the car, why didn't he see it?  Needed an eye test?

The idiot 2LT (again repetitive I know) Kept trying to use his rank *chuckle* and his status as a member of the military to not comply.  That ls complete and utter bullshit on the 2LT's part.  He doesn't get special privilege to ignore local law enforcement simply because he's wearing a uniform.  And you can clearly hear the officer tell him "I'm a veteran too".

I clearly heard the "cop" asking the victim what his rank was, indicating he was either ignorant of military insignia or deliberately trying to provoke the victim.   Since he later claimed to be a veteran, he cannot claim to be ignorant.  Hence he was deliberately provocative and hence responsible for escalating the situation, the opposite of what he was supposed to be doing.   He deserved to lose his job.

Hopefully no rent-a-cop agencies will take him, either.

Again you're letting your personal bias from whatever bad run ins you've had with the cops completely kill any kind of common sense you should be applying to this situation.  ANd it's really sad.

You want to assume this is personal to me in some way instead of treating what I said for what it is, an objective analysis.

Were the suspect's rights violated?

Yes.

That's what we need to know.

So if the one cop got himself fired for doing his job?  What should happen to the 2LT for his actions during that stop that escalated it to the point it got to?

Nothing.   He was the VICTIM.

Stop blaming him.

And there we have it.  Your myopic view of law enforcement boiled down to it's purest form.  It's not just this traffic stop you despise...you just hate law enforcement period.

Your line of argument isn't succeeding.  You should try to inject more facts into your discussions.

You're one of those that would just rather give a middle finger to any police officer you see and chuckle;e to yourself about how cool you are for doing it.

See what I mean?

You're setting up some straw-critters, hoping that they'll bait your hooks.

They don't.

Only sheep like the taste of straw.

[txradioguy]

No.

The cop did when he pulled the gun with no evidence of an active threat.

A citizen reacting SLOWLY is not a threat, just a moron.

They make anyone an officer, these days....

I was no soldier.

And the orders were not lawful, not when the command was, under gun-point, to exit the vehicle with no statement of probable cause for the stop.

The "cops" escalated the situation, don't forget.

They were supposed to get their asses out of the cop car, walk up to the citizen and SPEAK to him.

Not scream at him with weapons out.    I'd have taken my sweet time to answer those unlawful orders, too.

And, btw, it's REALLY hard to run over someone approaching the SIDE of a car...the wheels don't roll that way.   And if the suspect had fled the scene after coming to a stop, THEN the cops could have had a fun high-speed chase and OBVIOUS CAUSE to draw weapons.  Since that's not what happened, don't try to bolster your arguments with hypotheticals.

The cops were in violation of standard procedure.

What LAW did the victim violate?

The CONSTITUTION is the basis of liberty.    When "laws" violate the Constitution, they're not laws and don't need to be obeyed.

Which laws did the victim violate?

The cops violated the Fourth Amendment, engaged in assault under color of authority and otherwise abused their power.

The old description for that is "police brutality".  Conservatives used to object to that.  Actually, conservatives still object to it.   

What law did he violate, in his brandy-new factory tinted SUV? 

There was a tag visible.   It was in the rear window.  The cop had a mile of looking at that end of the car, why didn't he see it?  Needed an eye test?

I clearly heard the "cop" asking the victim what his rank was, indicating he was either ignorant of military insignia or deliberately trying to provoke the victim.   Since he later claimed to be a veteran, he cannot claim to be ignorant.  Hence he was deliberately provocative and hence responsible for escalating the situation, the opposite of what he was supposed to be doing.   He deserved to lose his job.

Hopefully no rent-a-cop agencies will take him, either.

You want to assume this is personal to me in some way instead of treating what I said for what it is, an objective analysis.

Were the suspect's rights violated?

Yes.

That's what we need to know.

Nothing.   He was the VICTIM.

Stop blaming him.

Your line of argument isn't succeeding.  You should try to inject more facts into your discussions.

See what I mean?

You're setting up some straw-critters, hoping that they'll bait your hooks.

They don't.

Only sheep like the taste of straw.

This is nothing but one giant excuse on your part. 


The Cliff Notes version of this is: You hate the cops and nothing in this entire scenario is the drivers fault no matter how wrong he was.  Personal responsibility for his actions be dammed.

I take it you feel the same way about Duante Wright?

[Sled Dog]

Once the driver refused to comply with the officers commands...he was guilty of obstruction.  From that point on he determined how that entire stoop went.

The choice that 2LT made determined how that stop was going to go.

Or do you not believe in personal responsibility for your own actions anymore?

If my kids or even myself had acted like that 2LT had...I'd have no room to complain about what happened next.  Because the conscious decisions I would have made to ignore the officers commands would have led to the end result.

It's just that simple.

What is simple is that the victim was not informed of the probable cause for the stop.   Since it was a simple traffic stop, the cops had no business trying to haul the victim out of the vehicle.

The victim WAS cooperating.  His arms were stuck out the window.

The next step was for the "cops" to approach the victim and REQUEST driver's license, registration and insurance documents.

Was that done?

No.

What was done was an assault.   Refusing to comply with an unlawful order, to exit the vehicle, is not a crime.   The cops failed to follow procedure.  It's that simple.

That the victim took "too long" to roll the window down and obey the scary man hiding behind his po-leese uniform and his gun?   Too bad for the "cop", he clearly lacked experience and maturity.  And testicles that worked.   He had no business being on the streets, just like his side-kick, Mr. Pepper Spray.

[Sled Dog]

This is nothing but one giant excuse on your part. 


The Cliff Notes version of this is: You hate the cops and nothing in this entire scenario is the drivers fault no matter how wrong he was.  Personal responsibility for his actions be dammed.

The cliff notes version is that the Fourth Amendment sets limits on what the police can do.

These clowns exceeded that.

When they violated his Fourth Amendment protections, they violated YOUR Fourth Amendment protections.

You should try to care more about these cases and recognize them for the threats they are.   Don't automatically side with the cops on these issues, make the effort to understand what happened.

What happened here is that the cops got excited and over-reacted.

[txradioguy]

What is simple is that the victim was not informed of the probable cause for the stop.   Since it was a simple traffic stop, the cops had no business trying to haul the victim out of the vehicle.

The victim WAS cooperating.  His arms were stuck out the window.

The next step was for the "cops" to approach the victim and REQUEST driver's license, registration and insurance documents.

Was that done?

No.

What was done was an assault.   Refusing to comply with an unlawful order, to exit the vehicle, is not a crime.   The cops failed to follow procedure.  It's that simple.

That the victim took "too long" to roll the window down and obey the scary man hiding behind his po-leese uniform and his gun?   Too bad for the "cop", he clearly lacked experience and maturity.  And testicles that worked.   He had no business being on the streets, just like his side-kick, Mr. Pepper Spray.

You and Benjamin Crump have a lot in common when it comes to the hatred of the police.

[Absalom]

The "special ignorant driver," slapped away the policeman's hand!  Oh my gosh!  Yes, he thinks he is SPECIAL.  He says it!      SOCIOPATH...

------------------------
Commentary, as it should be, is essentially free on TBR;
therefore self-label yourself a ranting moron, if you choose.
However slandering an Army Lieutenant in uniform, a Sociopath,
is worse than disgraceful; it's beyond stupid.
But hey, stupid is home for some!!!

[txradioguy]

The cliff notes version is that the Fourth Amendment sets limits on what the police can do.

These clowns exceeded that.

When they violated his Fourth Amendment protections, they violated YOUR Fourth Amendment protections.

You should try to care more about these cases and recognize them for the threats they are.   Don't automatically side with the cops on these issues, make the effort to understand what happened.

What happened here is that the cops got excited and over-reacted.

No they didn't. 

In your zealotry to bash cops at all costs you're completely excusing the conscious decisions made by the drive to refuse to comply.

His actions...or inaction in this case led directly to what happened.

Like I said earlier and you...big surprise...ignored...is that basic civics says that if he'd complied when originally given the verbal commands by the police this would have never happened.

[txradioguy]

Speaking o the 4th Amendment, according to the holding in Delaware v Prowse those officers were well within their right to stop the vehicle and have the driver step out.

[Sled Dog]

Still contradicting yourself  "Those orders were lawful and routine for a traffic stop." in your previous post. The Lt was being DETAINED, that means by LAW he is required to follow the directions of the police officers. He did not come close to doing that for over SEVEN MINUTES. Tinted windows (So they can't see into the vehicle,) They can't see how many people are in the vehicle or if they are armed. No visible license plate, so they don't know if the vehicle is stolen. He continued to leave the car running after being told 5-6 times to turn it off. Instead he used that time to set up his cell phone to record the incident. He did not have BOTH  hands out the window until being told over 10 times (He only had his left arm out. and He had a FIREARM within reach of his right hand. If I am in that situation your DAMN right I am approaching with my sidearm out.

The cop should have approached the vehicle and investigated.

Guess what they're paid to do?

Most of those seven minutes were spent with a raging "cop" outside his patrol car with a gun pointed at the victim.  Why the hell should the victim not take his sweet time getting the window open, so he could record the event?

If the cop had simply gotten out of his vehicle, like HE'S SUPPOSED TO DO, and TALKED to the driver, face to face, NONE of this would have happened.   

It's really that simple.

I got stopped by a jack-ass cop in an unmarked car because HE tried to cut me off by running a stop sign.  He then play tail-gate games and then two miles later, after I went through a yellow light...he had to go through the red, he flashed his lights and I realized he wasn't just some dickless citizen with an attitude, he was a dickless cop being a dick with an attitude, who then tried to browbeat me over some such nonsense as how he had the right of way for being a cop yada yada yada.  Until I pointed out that he wasn't responding to an emergency call, he didn't have his lights flashing, and he ran the red light, not me.   Then he got fed up and left.

Another time some dipshit was going 20 in a 35 zone.  So I passed him.   Two blocks later, he came up next to me, clearly he was turning to wherever his home was, and yelled "hey, punk, see this?" and flashed his penis...er his badge at me.   I gave him the finger and asked if he saw that.

I've lots of fine experiences with the police, even had one thank ME for being polite when I got caught in a BS speed trap.   When they're doing their job CORRECTLY, they're fine.   Some of them are jerks.  The two I described are jerks, the two animals in the OP deserved to lose their jobs.

You should try to be objective some time.   After all, conservatives are better than Rodents, so you shouldn't argue like the Rodents do.

[Sled Dog]

Speaking o the 4th Amendment, according to the holding in Delaware v Prowse those officers were well within their right to stop the vehicle and have the driver step out.

Oh.

Did they explain their probable cause to the victim?

No.

So, according to the United States Constitution, they did not comply with the Fourth Amendment.

"I gots me a badge, a uniform AND a GUN, so get out of the car, PUNK!" is not adequate.

[Sled Dog]

You and Benjamin Crump have a lot in common when it comes to the hatred of the police.

Shouldn't mind readers be extremely wealthy?

[txradioguy]

Shouldn't mind readers be extremely wealthy?

No mind reading needed here.  You hate cops...Crump is a known cop hating lawyer.  You two would get along well.

[txradioguy]

Kansas v Glover

Carroll v United States

Husty v United States

Colorado v Bannister


There's others.  And all uphold the right to search vehicles for the same reason that this vehicle search went down.